UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[SWP's back]

Is your interpretation.
A court will have a say if he is a whistleblower or a hacker, driven by greed.

Both ways suggest publishing original data surely?

No. It’s just not whistleblowing. You’re wrong. Aguero is correct.

 

[SWP's back]

No, it's not whistleblowing, as you can't avail of the protections available to whistleblowers if you've committed a crime in obtaining your information, you're not a whistleblower if you don't hand the information directly to the relevant authorities and you're not a whistleblower if the actions you expose aren't criminal.
Hacking is a crime.
Extortion is a crime.
Selling stolen goods/data is a crime.
Handling stolen goods/data is a crime.

Der Spiegel are not a relevant authority.
FootballLeaks are not a relevant authority.

FFPR are not laws, directives or legislation enforced by a judiciary system.
UEFA are not a financial regulator.

Yeah but apart from that?

 

[jimbo101]

Yeah but apart from that?

All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us

 

[KS55]

If all these clubs are going to write to the FA, Premier league etc, what happens on match days in the directors box? Is it all chums together, glad handing and quaffing champagne? Or will City give the ****s a sausage sandwich and a plastic cup of Bovril? Will our guys boycott the boardroom on away trips? Love to be a fly on the wall!
"Ah Mr Khaldoon, nice to see you"
"Fuck off"

 

[Centurions]

If all these clubs are going to write to the FA, Premier league etc, what happens on match days in the directors box? Is it all chums together, glad handing and quaffing champagne? Or will City give the ****s a sausage sandwich and a plastic cup of Bovril? Will our guys boycott the boardroom on away trips? Love to be a fly on the wall!
"Ah Mr Khaldoon, nice to see you"
"Fuck off"

I would genuinely pay good money to see that.

 

[Shaelumstash]

This may have been correct 20 years ago (pre-internet), but media watchers now estimate that 80% of UK citizens' news comes form the all powerful (extremely left wing) BBC, through its web site, magazines, radio stations and TV channels. The print media may be right wing but the print media's influence is no longer as significant as you seem to think.

"media watchers estimate that 80% of UK citizens news comes from the BBC"

You can't possibly think that's true?

Which "media watchers"?

"Extremely left wing BBC"?? Is this the same BBC which books Nigel Ferage every time someone mentions the word "Brexit" in a pub? The same BBC that has Andrew Neil, the editor of The Spectator heading up the majority of its political output?

If that's "Extremely left-wing" I'd hate to see what "balanced and fair" looks like.

I think people are a little misguided in thinking that because people don't spend their 30p at the corner shop to buy a newspaper that the UK press no longer have any influence.

Huge numbers read their news from newspaper websites every day. The papers are struggling commercially to monetise that, but it doesn't mean the papers don't still hold huge sway in forming opinions.

How do you think we get the baying mobs about Shamima Begum and City with FFP? They're getting the information from somewhere.

Even if it's from Facebook, the people sharing it on Facebook initially are getting it from somewhere. Often, the original source is a news organisation and it's written with a political slant to appeal to the people sharing it.

If you think Brexit would have happened without the Daily Mail, then I think you're bonkers.

 

[purplenose]

Boycotting games in any competition will not help the team, it may even harm them or have players and our manager questioning their futures. The way to do it must surely be a full stadium showing their displeasure in some way.

 

[ytic04]

The upside of this is, the match atmosphere might improve with the one for all tone in this thread.

If only only that Puma was a Cheatah.

 

[Shaelumstash]

Well, I'm not a journalist any more! I work in finance now, though I do lots of interviews with media (largely the business press).

All of what you say is I think correct, big picture. And I don't know for sure the cause. But . . .

The single most important event in US journalistic history over the last 50 years was the Washington Post's exposure of Watergate. The NYT, LA Times and Time magazine -- among others -- deserve credit too, and when Walter Cronkite at CBS blessed the story by featuring it prominently later during the investigation (and he was certainly not perceived as liberal, nor was CBS), he elevated it, followed by the coverage of the Watergate hearings live. It took TV to turn the tide of US sentiment against Nixon, but it was the Post that did the first digging, and the heavy lifting.

Bob Woodward (who was a Republican but didn't vote for Nixon), Carl Bernstein (an unabashed counter-culture liberal), editor Ben Bradlee (a friend of JFK and a Democrat) and Katherine Graham (the owner of the Post, and an upper crust conservative who was friends with a number of government officials in the Nixon White House) -- all became folk heroes -- especially Woodward and Bernstein, and especially after All the President's Men, which was about the journalistic process as much as the story itself.

But because the Nixon administration painted the Post as a tool of the hysterical left -- much as Trump has done the MSM -- and because the Post were vindicated, and clearly were instrumental in bringing down the presidency -- print journalism in America I think became a field that left-leaning change agents flocked to over a long time. It was a place where you could be a hero or heroine. We should add the break in values during the 60s and 70s over Vietnam too (largely a TV story) -- again an example of exposing the American public to the realities of a modern war supported by conservative doctrine which helped spark new liberalism, and made TV its tool (or vice versa maybe).

I have some other thoughts on the British press mission being to protect the glory days of England's English-ness, which is a conservative trope, but they are half-baked.

Fantastic reply mate, thank you so much for that.

Of course I knew about Watergate, All the President's Men and the public railing against Vietnam. But I guess I'd not put them all together to explain how that's impacted the US media 50 years later.

I think you're absolutely right about the "Little Englander" aspect to the UK press too.

But I still find it curious from a human behavioural point of that the political slant of the media isn't reflected in the political slant of polls.

Perhaps in both countries, the media organisations that are successful tend to be the ones that give voice to the people who feel they are not properly represented politically by the mainstream parties?

 

[SWP's back]

Trump gets shit press to appease all the trump haters.

No, Trump gets shit press because he’s a fucking idiot and a racist, self-admitted sexual assaulting cûnt. Oh yeah, he’s also a fucking criminal.

There’s a big old thread on him if you want to learn anything.